Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Thoughts on park / all mountain skis for a tall skier?

profile picture
kittywampus
Posts: 36 - Karma: 144
Hey ya'll

My name is Dave, I'm potentially looking to snag a new pair of skis this year, and I've been reading through the forums for tips on sizing but that's left me with some questions. I've been skiing for 19 years and i love to ski everywhere (off piste, trees, cliffs, backcountry, shitty tricks off natural features etc), but I've never spent a whole lot of time in the park. I'm looking to get a little more into it this year and I have a couple questions, but first some info:

I mostly ski in the PNW; home is Mt. Hood Meadows and I get out to Bachelor and Baker regularly, with a bigger road trip sprinkled in every year. I'm 6'4, 190 lbs, 27 yo. Pretty sure I'm looking for a relatively stiff, mustache camber ski that I can take all over the mountain (high speed over chunder, ice, frequent drops, etc), that would also be solid for learning some skillz in the park too. I'm currently on 2015 Atomic Bent Chetlers (192 cm), and basically I just want something pretty similar but narrower, lighter, and more nimble for blasting around in the spring, playing around in the park, hardpack days, etc.

Hoping to find something on sale at this point of the summer (seeing some hot deals out there), so I ideally don't want to spend more than $450-$500 (w/o bindings). So far seems doable this time of year. My questions:

Length. I've seen a lot of ppl say that they like park skis to be about the same height as them, if not a cm or two longer. By that logic I should be on 193 - 195s. Does that sound right? Seems long to me but i really have no idea (hence the thread).

Width. How wide would you say is too wide for the park? Do you think a waist around 96-100 would be too much, or could that make sense for my size? On the other side of that coin - the Moment Vice seems sick but it's only 83 underfoot and the longest version is 184 cm, do you think that's too small for me to confidently ski all over the mountain when I don't wanna be in the park? It looks like a lot of park-oriented skis max out around that length.

Maybe these are dumb questions... but the only skis I've used in the past six years are my old Ninthward THA 187s and the current Bent Chetlers, so all this time i've been on waist widths of 109 and 120 respectively. I would be so stoked to get something a bit smaller and lighter, I love the big skis but in certain conditions / in the park they can feel a little bit cumbersome sometimes.

Phew thank you so much if you read all of that! I def appreciate your time / any input you have. Psyched to get into the park more this season!
Aug 9 2017 2:25AM
5 0
profile picture
rohara
Posts: 146 - Karma: 366
Hey man,

A lot of sympathy for this thread! I'm a tall skier myself (6'9) and also work as a buyer for a retailer here in the UK so have had the chance to try out quite a few skis, and it's definitely hard finding ones in long enough sizes.

You're right that most park oriented skis tend to max out around 184, I've been riding 185 Blends for the last season which are super fun but for all mountain stuff definitely make me wary about flying over the handlebars. For a mix of all mtn and park I reckon your best bets are gonna be Line Francis Bacon's which come in 190cm, or Armada ARV 106 & Faction CT 2.0 which both come in a 188cm, although the CT 2.0 only has 188 for the coming season so you wouldn't be able to find discounted ones yet. I've ridden the 184cm CT 2.0's and they were noticeably way more stable and felt longer than the 185 Blends so the 188 version is only gonna get more stable. Also ridden the 180cm ARV 106's which were definitely way way too short for me but bearing in mind how short they were felt surprisingly stable and loads of fun, so again reckon the 188cm would be great.

They're all quite wide, from 102mm - 106mm but definitely still usable for park and all awesome for all mountain too.

Hope that was helpful!
Aug 9 2017 9:56AM
1 0
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 9445 - Karma: 62,538
yeah you probably won't have much luck finding many park skis that are as tall as you, being 6'4". but what you can do is find a pretty long park/all mtn ski that is medium wide and has the stiffness to support you. a waist between 90 and 100 is ideal in my book and can do it all from rail rat days to shredding

my suggestion would be the armada ARVti in 188cm. it's the ARV shape which is a tried and true park and all mtn shape that's been used and refined for 15 years now (and was what the E dollo and al dente were made from) with a layer of metal so they have way more balls than most park/all mtn skis. at 188cm youre only going 5cm below your height and theyre super high quality skis

they don't make them anymore but im sure you can find them online. here's a link from a quick google search, note i know nothing about this store

http://www.powder7.com/Armada-ARVti-Skis-188cm-New-Flat-2016/for-sale/?utm_source=GoogleBase&utm_medium=paid&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_dPxq7TK1QIVBAxpCh3iQAagEAQYASABEgLRDPD_BwE

i forget now if you asked about bindings. my go to answer for bindings nowadays is get Look Pivots, or Tyrolia Attacks if you are concerned about price or cost
Aug 9 2017 11:12AM
2 0
profile picture
Swandog7
Posts: 4956 - Karma: 9,025
Id say try and find a Moment PB&J in a 192 or 188 (one of the two cant remember what size is correct) somewhere. I think Evo has them for $599 but you might be able to find them cheaper somewhere else. Great all Mountain ski for bigger guys and just in general
Aug 9 2017 2:30PM
3 0
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 9445 - Karma: 62,538
Swandog7Id say try and find a Moment PB&J in a 192 or 188 (one of the two cant remember what size is correct) somewhere. I think Evo has them for $599 but you might be able to find them cheaper somewhere else. Great all Mountain ski for bigger guys and just in general


oh yeah that's a great suggestion
Aug 9 2017 3:24PM
3 0
profile picture
kittywampus
Posts: 36 - Karma: 144
roharaHey man,

A lot of sympathy for this thread! I'm a tall skier myself (6'9) and also work as a buyer for a retailer here in the UK so have had the chance to try out quite a few skis, and it's definitely hard finding ones in long enough sizes.

You're right that most park oriented skis tend to max out around 184, I've been riding 185 Blends for the last season which are super fun but for all mountain stuff definitely make me wary about flying over the handlebars. For a mix of all mtn and park I reckon your best bets are gonna be Line Francis Bacon's which come in 190cm, or Armada ARV 106 & Faction CT 2.0 which both come in a 188cm, although the CT 2.0 only has 188 for the coming season so you wouldn't be able to find discounted ones yet. I've ridden the 184cm CT 2.0's and they were noticeably way more stable and felt longer than the 185 Blends so the 188 version is only gonna get more stable. Also ridden the 180cm ARV 106's which were definitely way way too short for me but bearing in mind how short they were felt surprisingly stable and loads of fun, so again reckon the 188cm would be great.

They're all quite wide, from 102mm - 106mm but definitely still usable for park and all awesome for all mountain too.

Hope that was helpful!


Dang dude 6'9 that's hardcore! Those 180s must've felt so funny on your feet haha

Thanks for the input! Super helpful, I'll shoot for 188-190 or so, and definitely good to hear about width. I been interested in the Bacons for awhile but I was kinda assuming they'd be a little big for semi-regular park use, guess I should still consider them though.

Question is - are they really different enough from 192 Bent Chetlers to justify buying them? I don't want to replace the Atomics, just looking for something less enormous / more nimble to compliment them. The Bacons are 16 mm narrower at the waist and about 16% lighter, that's a respectable difference but do you think it's different enough to justify spending ~$500?
Aug 10 2017 2:05AM
0 0
profile picture
kittywampus
Posts: 36 - Karma: 144
Thanks for all the baller suggestions! Will definitely consider the Armadas, and good to hear about width - I was thinking mid 90s but I don't have much experience with rails so I had no idea if that'd be too much.

I was just looking at the PB&Js the other day before posting this thread! Moment is having a solid sale right now but they sold out of those. They sound like a great fit for me in terms of size, profile, stiffness, etc., so I'd be very stoked on those and would potentially be down to spring for them at evo for $599... but then I read this Blister review that makes me question it a little. He goes into a lot of detail but here are the highlights:

Given the PB&J's performance in the park, I wish that I had never kissed the ski's edges on a single rail.

I don't mean to imply that the PB&J is a terrible park ski, but I am saying that there is a lot to be desired when skiing park on the PB&J.

The bottom line is that the PB&J is too stiff for being such a wide park ski (101mm under foot). While this stiffness is one of the reasons the ski is such a good all mountain performer, it severely inhibits the skis playfulness. Simply put, jibbing wasn't a whole lot of fun on the PB&J. Butters were a lot of work and were difficult to execute well at faster speeds.

I only liked to ski fast and smooth through the park on the PB&J. The size, flex, and lack of snap in between turns makes the 188cm PB&J feel like a cruiser bike in an arena where a dirt jumper is the tool of choice. The PB&J really doesn't have a whole lot of pop, nor is the swing weight particularly light. These characteristics are ill suited for skiers looking to do just about anything in the park besides slow, floaty spins.

Even simple 270's out of rail were work with these skis. I didn't find the 101 waist to be too cumbersome on rails, I also wasn't spinning any 4's off rails, nor was I doing many switch ups. The PB&J is a lot of ski to be throwing around like that.

If you are a freestyle-minded skier considering the PB&J, you need to ask yourself the question "does my skiing style jive with this ski?"

If you want a ski that can throw around on rails, look elsewhere. There are all-mountain skis that are better for that purpose. I felt that with detuned edges on the PB&J, I was making too great a sacrifice in the ski's all mountain performance.

In a freestyle context, the PB&J is for someone who primarily skis aggressively all over the mountain, likes to huck and throw tricks off natural features, and only ducks in the park from time to time to cruise through the jump line...

What he's describing is at the end there is basically what I already do with my Atomics, don't really need new skis for that. Do you think the PB&J would be cumbersome in the park as described? Haha this guy said that he didn't want to imply that it's a terrible park ski, and then he just ragged on it for a whole page. If not for the scathing review, I'd be considering pulling the trigger on those pretty soon.

Thanks again for the input! You guys are all rad for taking the time / helping out with this
Aug 10 2017 2:49AM
1 0
profile picture
rohara
Posts: 146 - Karma: 366
kittywampusDang dude 6'9 that's hardcore! Those 180s must've felt so funny on your feet haha

Thanks for the input! Super helpful, I'll shoot for 188-190 or so, and definitely good to hear about width. I been interested in the Bacons for awhile but I was kinda assuming they'd be a little big for semi-regular park use, guess I should still consider them though.

Question is - are they really different enough from 192 Bent Chetlers to justify buying them? I don't want to replace the Atomics, just looking for something less enormous / more nimble to compliment them. The Bacons are 16 mm narrower at the waist and about 16% lighter, that's a respectable difference but do you think it's different enough to justify spending ~$500?


You're welcome man, yea 180's pretty much snowblades haha. To be honest the Bacon's are definitely the ski i've spent the least amount of time on out of the 3 I mentioned, and for park they will probably ski a little different to the others as they're a bit stiffer and with that 190 length that's good for lots of pop and stable for landings etc but they're gonna be harder to press/butter than either the arv106 or CT 2.0 if you're in to that. They're definitely gonna feel different to your Bent chetler's though, they're really light and have a low swingweight for a ski of that size/stiffness which makes them feel easier to move in the air.

If you're wanting it to focus much more on park than all mountain then personally I'd probably go with the 188 CT 2.0, they're super playful but also really stable and generally just feel easy and fun to ski, would definitely be a really different ski in the quiver to your bent chetlers.
Aug 10 2017 6:55AM
1 0
profile picture
Deepskier
Posts: 3267 - Karma: 4,832
kittywampusThanks for all the baller suggestions! Will definitely consider the Armadas, and good to hear about width - I was thinking mid 90s but I don't have much experience with rails so I had no idea if that'd be too much.

I'll never tell someone to go away from armadas, hard to go wrong there but, for you id say some 191 kartel 108s fit the bill almost exactly. Of course I'm not sure what your budget is but im sure you can talk to on3p or wu banger (both awesome companies) and they could build you a full custom ski that fits or just a model they already make in a 200 or so. You could build a pair at home which I have done and its really fun but you have to get it to work out so there might be some trial and error there. If you just want to buy some off the shelf look at companies that make some big mountain skis in 190+ like moment, on3p, black crows(?) that kind of stuff.
Aug 10 2017 3:02PM
1 0
profile picture
Greg_K
Posts: 961 - Karma: 2,784
Think there are lots of great skis mentioned in this thread and I'd add another one that is around the 95 waist you were looking at, the Head Venturi 95 in the 191cm. Mount around 3cm back of center and it works great all mountain and in the park. I'm 6'1/175 lbs and use the 181cm in the park and the 191 cm for harder charging and in the park.
They would be lighter than some of the 100mm plus waist skis mentioned and have a nice even flex without being too stiff or soft. The great thing about them is they have been replaced by the Head Kore line for 2018 which is a super light, non twin tip ski so huge deals to be had on the Venturi 95. Asogear has the Venturi 95 2016 version in 191cm for $249.99 with free shipping. Add some Attack 13 bindings to match for $129.99 and you have skis and bindings still under your budget.

Lots of options out there for taller guys!
Aug 10 2017 5:06PM
2 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7891 - Karma: 24,960
I am about the same size as you I have had good luck with the 189 k2s. Maybe the Pettitor 100s or 4FRNT KYE seems like kind of a similar ski I was interested in trying.
Aug 13 2017 5:51PM
1 0
profile picture
kittywampus
Posts: 36 - Karma: 144
roharaYou're welcome man, yea 180's pretty much snowblades haha. To be honest the Bacon's are definitely the ski i've spent the least amount of time on out of the 3 I mentioned, and for park they will probably ski a little different to the others as they're a bit stiffer and with that 190 length that's good for lots of pop and stable for landings etc but they're gonna be harder to press/butter than either the arv106 or CT 2.0 if you're in to that. They're definitely gonna feel different to your Bent chetler's though, they're really light and have a low swingweight for a ski of that size/stiffness which makes them feel easier to move in the air.

haha good to know thanks! I'm not too worried about buttering - i'm heavy enough i'm sure i could make it happen. When you used them did you have any reservations about the build quality of the Line SFB? I found a slammin deal on a brand new pair and I'm very tempted to go for it, but I've seen quite a few reviews bashing the durability of Line skis (I've never used anything of theirs). That said, some reviewers said that the more premium Line models (like the SFB) are more durable than their cheaper stuff. I'm not gonna be smashing into rails everyday, will be more focused on all-mountain freestyle and some jumps in the park so I assume they'd be fine. I do hit my fair share of rocks tho...
Aug 15 2017 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
rohara
Posts: 146 - Karma: 366
kittywampushaha good to know thanks! I'm not too worried about buttering - i'm heavy enough i'm sure i could make it happen. When you used them did you have any reservations about the build quality of the Line SFB? I found a slammin deal on a brand new pair and I'm very tempted to go for it, but I've seen quite a few reviews bashing the durability of Line skis (I've never used anything of theirs). That said, some reviewers said that the more premium Line models (like the SFB) are more durable than their cheaper stuff. I'm not gonna be smashing into rails everyday, will be more focused on all-mountain freestyle and some jumps in the park so I assume they'd be fine. I do hit my fair share of rocks tho...


That's tough to say as I didn't use them long enough to get a scope of durability. Line do have a bit of a rep for bad durability My Blends that I've used this past season don't look in the best shape I have to admit, but to be fair it's only cosmetic damage like little chips on the topsheet and they've been through a lot of sketchy thin snow/rocky conditions as well as riding park quite a lot, and at my shop I've gotta say we very rarely get people coming back complaining about durability when they get Lines.

I do know that the recent Bacon's have got thinner bases and edges than Line's park range, if you're not planning on doing a lot of rails then the edges probably aren't a massive concern. As for the bases it's true that the thinner ones aren't gonna hold up as well if you hit rocks, but to be honest if you nail your base on a rock then an extra couple mm thickness might not even make that much difference. For jumps in the park and all mountain freestyle I don't reckon you'll have any durability problems, so I reckon go for the slammin deal!
Aug 16 2017 7:43AM
1 0
profile picture
BDevil17
Posts: 93 - Karma: 168
Sounds like you need to check out the Kartel Series from ON3P. Made in Portland, Oregon, right by you. Bombproof bases and super durable edges/sidewalls. Made with bamboo so they're super lively and poppy and light but cannot be compared to limp noodles. I snagged some kartel 108's in 191 (I'm only 6'2") at the end of last season from their demo fleet and I could not be happier with them. Perform like Champs in every condition except for pure ice (but do any skis really like that stuff?). Great edge hold on groomers (tails do not wash out like other bigger skis), surfy and stable off piste in the crud and the slush, and light in the air. Lots of guys in the park love these things (I am not the biggest park skier but I hear great things about them in this area to). They're available in a 98, 108, and 116 underfoot, so maybe try out the 98's? You could see if the factory would be willing to let you demo them before you try them out. Their factory line is dialed in and helps the skis perform incredibly well, but it you get a set with demo bindings you can try out if you like it centered or on the line.

Moment is excellent as well, I have heard great things about their PB n J. Just never have tried them out. Either way you can't go wrong, both made in 'Merica.

Hope this helps!

**This post was edited on Aug 24th 2017 at 2:04:52pm
Aug 16 2017 11:09AM
3 0
All times are Eastern (-5)